DOMAIN:CREATIVE — COMPETITIVE_INTELLIGENCE¶
OWNER: valentijn (Brand Strategist) ALSO_USED_BY: joshua (market research), tjarda (brand positioning), aimee (client scoping), boris (commercial strategy) UPDATED: 2026-03-28 SCOPE: competitive landscape analysis, digital competitive analysis techniques, SWOT for brand positioning, market white space identification
CORE_PRINCIPLE¶
Competitive intelligence is systematic collection and analysis of information about competitors to inform brand strategy. It is not espionage. It is not copying. It is understanding the landscape so you can find your own territory.
RULE: competitive intelligence serves POSITIONING decisions — it is not surveillance for its own sake RULE: all sources must be publicly available and ethically obtained RULE: analyze competitors to find WHITE SPACE, not to copy what works for them RULE: competitive landscape analysis is a living process, not a one-time report
COMPETITIVE_LANDSCAPE_ANALYSIS¶
STEP_BY_STEP_PROCESS¶
STEP_1: DEFINE_THE_COMPETITIVE_SET¶
Not all competitors are equal. Categorize them:
| Type | Definition | Example for GE |
|---|---|---|
| Direct | Same product/service, same audience | Other AI dev agencies |
| Indirect | Different product, same need | Traditional software agencies, freelancers |
| Substitute | Different approach entirely | No-code platforms, off-the-shelf SaaS, hiring in-house |
| Aspirational | Not competitors but set expectations | Big tech product quality (Apple, Stripe) |
RULE: include substitutes — the biggest competitive threat is often NOT a direct competitor but an alternative approach RULE: limit the competitive set to 8-12 brands. More than that dilutes analysis.
STEP_2: GATHER_INTELLIGENCE¶
For each competitor, collect:
COMPETITOR PROFILE — [NAME]
BASICS
Website: [URL]
Founded: [year]
Headquarters: [location]
Size: [employees, if available]
Funding: [if available — indicates trajectory]
POSITIONING
Tagline/headline: [from their homepage]
Core value proposition: [what they promise]
Target audience: [who they speak to]
Price positioning: [premium, mid, budget, freemium]
Key differentiator: [what they claim makes them unique]
PRODUCT/SERVICE
Core offering: [what they sell]
Notable features: [what they emphasize]
Limitations: [what they don't do or do poorly — from reviews]
Technology: [relevant tech stack, if visible]
MARKETING
Primary channels: [where they market — LinkedIn, Google Ads, content, etc.]
Content strategy: [blog frequency, topics, quality]
Social presence: [follower counts, engagement quality]
SEO strength: [ranking for key category terms]
Messaging themes: [recurring themes in their marketing]
REPUTATION
Customer sentiment: [positive/negative themes from reviews]
Review scores: [G2, Trustpilot, app stores]
Notable press: [media coverage, awards]
Community presence: [forums, open source, events]
STEP_3: MAP_THE_LANDSCAPE¶
Create a perceptual map (see domains/creative/brand-strategy.md for methodology).
Choose axes based on: 1. What the TARGET AUDIENCE values most (from research) 2. Where meaningful DIFFERENCES exist between competitors 3. Where WHITE SPACE might exist
COMMON_MAPS_FOR_SERVICE_BRANDS: - Price vs. Scope (cheap-narrow to expensive-comprehensive) - Speed vs. Quality (fast-good enough to slow-premium) - Self-service vs. Full-service (DIY tools to done-for-you) - Specialist vs. Generalist (niche to broad)
STEP_4: IDENTIFY_PATTERNS_AND_GAPS¶
PATTERN_ANALYSIS: - Where do competitors CLUSTER? (red ocean — avoid or out-execute) - Where are competitors ABSENT? (potential blue ocean — but validate demand) - What do ALL competitors say? (category table stakes — must match) - What does NO competitor say? (potential differentiator — if audience cares) - Where do competitors OVER-SERVE? (opportunity to simplify) - Where do competitors UNDER-SERVE? (opportunity to excel)
STEP_5: SYNTHESIZE_INTO_STRATEGY¶
OUTPUT: Competitive Landscape Report (see deliverable template below)
DIGITAL_COMPETITIVE_ANALYSIS¶
WEBSITE_ANALYSIS¶
WHAT_TO_ANALYZE: - Homepage messaging — What promise do they lead with? What's the hero CTA? - Navigation structure — What do they prioritize? What's buried? - Pricing page — How do they price? What tiers? What's included/excluded? - About page — What story do they tell? What values do they claim? - Case studies — What clients do they showcase? What results do they claim? - Blog/resources — What topics do they cover? How frequently? What quality?
TOOLS_AND_TECHNIQUES: - Wayback Machine (web.archive.org) — Track how their messaging has evolved over time - BuiltWith / Wappalyzer — Identify their tech stack - PageSpeed Insights — Measure their site performance (proxy for technical competence) - View source / Network tab — Identify tracking, analytics, and marketing tools they use
SEO_AND_CONTENT_ANALYSIS¶
WHAT_TO_ANALYZE: - Ranking keywords — What terms do they rank for? (Use Ahrefs, SEMrush, or free alternatives) - Content gaps — What high-volume terms in the category does NO competitor rank for? - Backlink profile — Who links to them? (indicates PR and authority strategy) - Content calendar — How often do they publish? What formats? - Top-performing content — Which pages get the most traffic/engagement?
EU_COMPLIANT_TOOLS: - Matomo (open source, EU) for analytics benchmarking - Plausible (EU) for lightweight traffic estimation - Ahrefs (Singapore, GDPR-compliant) for SEO analysis - SEMrush (US, GDPR-compliant) for keyword and competitive analysis
SOCIAL_MEDIA_ANALYSIS¶
WHAT_TO_ANALYZE: - Platform presence — Where are they active? Where are they absent? - Content mix — What types of content? (educational, promotional, engagement, thought leadership) - Posting frequency — How active are they? - Engagement quality — Not just likes — are comments substantive? Are people sharing? - Audience profile — Who follows and engages with them? - Ad library — Check Meta Ad Library and Google Ads Transparency Center for their paid messaging
REVIEW_MINING¶
The most underutilized competitive intelligence source.
PROCESS: 1. Collect 50+ reviews across platforms (G2, Capterra, Trustpilot, app stores, Reddit) 2. Code each review: positive themes, negative themes, unmet needs, switching triggers 3. Create a frequency matrix: how often does each theme appear? 4. Identify HIGH-FREQUENCY + HIGH-EMOTION themes = strategic opportunities
WHAT_REVIEWS_REVEAL: - 5-star reviews — What do loyal customers love? (their strength, your table stakes) - 1-star reviews — What makes people angry? (their weakness, your opportunity) - 2-3 star reviews — Most valuable. Nuanced feedback with both praise and frustration. - Switching reviews — "I moved from X to Y because..." Gold for positioning. - Missing feature requests — Unmet needs the competitor hasn't addressed.
SWOT_FOR_BRAND_POSITIONING¶
Traditional SWOT is too generic. Adapt it specifically for brand positioning decisions.
BRAND_POSITIONING_SWOT¶
BRAND POSITIONING SWOT — [BRAND NAME]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Context: [what positioning decision this SWOT informs]
STRENGTHS (internal, positive)
What can this brand credibly claim that competitors cannot?
What proof points does this brand have? (case studies, certifications, data)
What unique assets does this brand own? (technology, process, talent, IP)
What does the audience already believe about this brand?
WEAKNESSES (internal, negative)
What can competitors claim that this brand cannot?
Where is the brand's credibility thin?
What limitations exist in the product/service?
What negative perceptions exist in the audience's mind?
OPPORTUNITIES (external, positive)
What audience needs are unmet by current competitors?
What market trends could this brand ride?
What competitor weaknesses can be exploited?
What category conventions can be broken?
What white space exists in the perceptual map?
THREATS (external, negative)
What competitor moves could undermine this brand's position?
What market trends could make this brand less relevant?
What new entrants could disrupt the category?
What substitute solutions could reduce demand for the category entirely?
SWOT_TO_STRATEGY_TRANSLATION¶
| SWOT Combination | Strategy Type | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Strength + Opportunity | LEVERAGE | Double down. This is your winning play. |
| Strength + Threat | DEFEND | Use your strength to neutralize the threat. |
| Weakness + Opportunity | IMPROVE | Fix the weakness to capture the opportunity. |
| Weakness + Threat | MITIGATE | Address urgently or avoid this territory entirely. |
RULE: a SWOT without strategic translation is a waste of time RULE: every SWOT item must be SPECIFIC. "Strong brand" is not a strength. "92% brand awareness among Dutch SME owners" is.
IDENTIFYING_MARKET_WHITE_SPACE¶
WHAT_WHITE_SPACE_IS¶
White space is an unoccupied or underserved position in the market that a brand can credibly claim. It exists at the intersection of: 1. AUDIENCE NEED (people want this) 2. COMPETITIVE ABSENCE (nobody is serving it well) 3. BRAND CAPABILITY (you can actually deliver it)
All three must be present. A gap that nobody occupies because nobody wants it is NOT white space — it's a dead zone.
WHITE_SPACE_IDENTIFICATION_METHOD¶
METHOD_1: PERCEPTUAL_MAP_GAPS¶
- Build a perceptual map with competitor positions
- Identify empty quadrants or sparsely populated areas
- For each gap, ask: "Is this empty because there's no demand, or because nobody has claimed it?"
- Validate with audience research
METHOD_2: UNMET_NEEDS_ANALYSIS¶
- Map all audience needs (from JTBD research)
- Map which competitors serve which needs
- Identify needs that are IMPORTANT to the audience but POORLY served by competitors
- These are your white space candidates
UNMET NEEDS MATRIX
| Audience Need | Importance (1-5) | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | SERVED? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affordable pricing | 5 | 2 | 3 | 1 | Poorly |
| Enterprise compliance | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | Poorly |
| Full-service agency | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | Partially |
| Fast delivery | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | Well |
| Transparency | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | Poorly |
Scores: 1=poor, 2=below average, 3=average, 4=above average, 5=excellent
WHITE SPACE: High importance + low competitor scores
METHOD_3: CATEGORY_CONVENTION_BREAKING¶
- List every "rule" the category follows (pricing model, messaging style, target audience, delivery model)
- For each rule, ask: "What if we did the opposite?"
- Filter for ideas that would be valued by the audience
- Test feasibility
EXAMPLE: | Category Convention | Opposite | Viable? | |---|---|---| | Software agencies charge by the hour | Fixed project pricing | Yes — reduces client risk | | Agencies show portfolio of past work | Show the process transparently | Yes — builds trust | | Agencies require lengthy RFP process | Chat-based intake (Dima) | Yes — reduces barrier | | Agencies are staffed by humans | AI-native agency | Yes — GE's core innovation |
METHOD_4: ADJACENT_CATEGORY_IMPORT¶
Look at how OTHER categories solve similar problems and import their model.
EXAMPLES: - Subscription pricing (from SaaS) applied to agency services - Self-service intake (from e-commerce) applied to consulting - Transparency reports (from tech companies) applied to creative agencies
COMPETITIVE_MONITORING¶
ONGOING_MONITORING_CADENCE¶
| Activity | Frequency | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Competitor website review | Monthly | valentijn |
| Review mining refresh | Quarterly | valentijn + joshua |
| SEO/content competitive audit | Quarterly | joshua |
| Full competitive landscape report | Semi-annually | valentijn |
| Ad-hoc competitor move analysis | As needed (triggered by news) | valentijn |
MONITORING_TRIGGERS¶
Escalate immediately when: - A direct competitor claims your positioning territory - A new entrant launches with a strong value proposition in your category - A competitor raises significant funding (signals aggressive growth) - A competitor's messaging shifts toward your audience - A major customer publicly switches to a competitor
INTELLIGENCE_SOURCES¶
| Source | What It Reveals | Check Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Competitor websites | Messaging changes, new features, pricing changes | Monthly |
| Google Alerts | Press coverage, brand mentions | Daily (automated) |
| G2/Capterra/Trustpilot | Customer sentiment shifts | Quarterly |
| Hiring patterns (reveals strategic priorities) | Monthly | |
| Crunchbase / dealroom.co | Funding, acquisitions, partnerships | Monthly |
| Meta Ad Library | Paid messaging, audience targeting | Quarterly |
| Industry conferences | Positioning presentations, networking intelligence | Per event |
| Patent filings | Future product directions | Semi-annually |
DELIVERABLE: COMPETITIVE_LANDSCAPE_REPORT¶
COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE REPORT — [CATEGORY / CLIENT]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Author: valentijn
Status: [DRAFT | REVIEW | APPROVED]
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- Category definition
- 3-5 key findings
- Primary strategic recommendation
2. COMPETITIVE SET
- Direct competitors (profiles)
- Indirect competitors (profiles)
- Substitutes (profiles)
3. COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS
- Feature/capability comparison matrix
- Pricing comparison
- Messaging comparison (what each competitor leads with)
- Audience overlap analysis
4. PERCEPTUAL MAP
- 2D map with all competitors plotted
- Axes rationale (why these dimensions)
- Gap identification
5. SWOT (brand positioning variant)
- For the client brand
- SWOT-to-strategy translation
6. WHITE SPACE ANALYSIS
- Identified white spaces
- Demand validation for each
- Feasibility assessment
7. STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS
- Positioning territory recommendation
- Competitive advantages to leverage
- Competitive threats to monitor
- Specific actions for brand strategy
8. APPENDIX
- Raw data sources
- Full competitor profiles
- Review mining summary
COMPETITIVE_INTELLIGENCE_CHECKLIST¶
Before finalizing competitive analysis:
[ ] SCOPE: competitive set is complete (direct, indirect, substitutes — not just obvious competitors)
[ ] RECENCY: all data is current (within 3 months for fast-moving categories)
[ ] AUDIENCE-LENS: analysis is from the audience's perspective, not internal perspective
[ ] EVIDENCE: every claim about a competitor is sourced and verifiable
[ ] BALANCED: strengths AND weaknesses of each competitor are documented
[ ] ACTIONABLE: analysis leads to specific strategic recommendations
[ ] WHITE_SPACE: at least one white space opportunity is identified and validated
[ ] MONITORING: ongoing monitoring plan is defined with cadence and triggers
[ ] ETHICAL: all sources are publicly available and legally obtained
ANTI_PATTERNS¶
ANTI_PATTERN: analyzing only direct competitors and ignoring substitutes FIX: the biggest threat is often a different APPROACH, not a similar company. Include substitutes.
ANTI_PATTERN: collecting competitive data without translating it into strategic implications FIX: data without strategy is trivia. Every competitive finding must answer: "So what does this mean for our positioning?"
ANTI_PATTERN: assuming competitors are static FIX: competitors evolve. A quarterly monitoring cadence prevents positioning surprises.
ANTI_PATTERN: copying competitor tactics because "they seem to be working" FIX: what works for their positioning may contradict yours. Analyze to differentiate, not to imitate.
ANTI_PATTERN: obsessing over competitor movements instead of audience needs FIX: competitor analysis serves audience understanding. If you know the audience deeply, competitor moves matter less.
ANTI_PATTERN: relying solely on competitor marketing materials (which are aspirational, not factual) FIX: cross-reference with customer reviews, employee reviews (Glassdoor), and actual product experience.
ANTI_PATTERN: conducting competitive analysis once and never updating it FIX: competitive landscapes shift. Build monitoring into the regular cadence.
ANTI_PATTERN: sharing competitive intelligence as gossip rather than strategic input FIX: competitive intelligence is a professional discipline. Document, source, and distribute formally.
AUTHORITATIVE_SOURCES¶
| Source | Work | Key Concept |
|---|---|---|
| Michael Porter | Competitive Strategy, Competitive Advantage | Five forces, value chain, generic strategies |
| W. Chan Kim & Renee Mauborgne | Blue Ocean Strategy | Strategy canvas, four actions framework |
| April Dunford | Obviously Awesome | Competitive alternatives, market category selection |
| Al Ries & Jack Trout | Positioning, Marketing Warfare | Category ownership, competitive framing |
| Mark Ritson | Marketing Week columns | Competitive diagnosis, market orientation |
| Ben Horowitz | The Hard Thing About Hard Things | Competitive response, wartime/peacetime strategy |
| Sean Ellis & Morgan Brown | Hacking Growth | Growth-oriented competitive analysis |
| Babette Bensoussan & Craig Fleisher | Analysis Without Paralysis | CI frameworks, practical analysis methods |
CROSS_REFERENCES¶
STRATEGY: domains/creative/brand-strategy.md — competitive analysis feeds positioning decisions AUDIENCE: domains/creative/audience-research.md — audience perspective on competitive landscape BRIEF: domains/creative/strategic-brief.md — competitive context in creative briefs BRAND_MGMT: domains/marketing/brand-management.md — competitive positioning execution MARKET_RESEARCH: joshua's market research methodology (shared service)
Competitive intelligence domain loaded. Know the landscape to find your territory.